This is admittedly somewhat lengthy, and it may potentially benefit from splitting into parts, and from some formatting. It isn't necessarily finished, though, and revisions may be forthcoming. If you think it's too long, that is understood, and specifically acknowledged as a potentially and arguable valid reason for not reading it - no-one has the time to read everything he or she wants unless conspicuously and and disturbingly lacking in curiosity and ambition. As the length or loquaciousness is already well known to me, and acknowledged, any comment amounting to nothing more than the repetition of this fact is not only unwelcome, but will not be tolerated - expect to be ignored or mercilessly abused verbally if you post anything of the kind, unless you have something useful and relevant to add. Otherwise, constructive criticism is not only welcome, but requested. You may challenge my conclusions and points of view, as unlike most other people - especially other narcissists - I do not take myself too seriously, and I consider challenges and criticism to be stimulating rather than a cause for raging or other defensive behaviours so common in narcissists.
I hope you will enjoy my insights as much as I enjoyed generating them! By generating, I mean, essentially writing this essay - insights tends to come very naturally and almost inevitable simply from the process of formulation of what you already know into words. There is surprisingly much that one can know without really understanding, even if it can be readily derived from what one knows or even understands. Sometimes, one might even understand, more or less implicitly, but without appreciating the significance of it. Writing, in my experience, tends to bring these unseen insights to light, and therefore, although one receives no new external data, one does learn a great deal in this way, and I think a lot of people would do well to spend more time on refining what they know, rather than amassing new knowledge, although the latter is naturally commendable and desirable too. I intend to expand on what I've touched on in this paragraph in a separate essay some other time. If you have comments on this, they are welcome.
Why do ordinaries take so-called "cheating" and infidelity so ridiculously seriously? I guess it's slightly more than one's lover getting his/her attention (all forms) needs met elsewhere than the place agreed upon, however implicitly. So, it's more than the breach of an agreement and trust. I imagine, that the victim (I'm sticking to conventional terminology for brevity and clarity; hence, victim) somehow imagines himself, or herself, to be less loved than if the... affair had not taken place. That seems improbable to me, even after considerable analysis and contemplation. Most likely, the affair is either a thoughtless act of impulse and reckless exploitation of opportunity, stemming from a lust for instant gratification and a short-term convenient disregard for long-term consequences, or, alternatively, the affair likely reflects that something in the supposed-monogamous relationship is not what it is supposed to be or what it needs to be, at least from the point of view of the cheater - so, the love that the victim may perceive as suddenly lost was not there at the time the affair got started, if it was ever there to begin with. Perhaps, the victim may have been unconsciously aware of it, but successfully denied it and repressed it from consciousness, so, the evidence of the affair becomes the corrosive truth that dissolves the illusion that everything is all right with the relationship, and the hurt partially reflects disillusionment, which is compounded by the perception of lost love, and this perception may even be real, insomuch that it may feel real, if delusional love serves the same need as true love, and I suppose to some extent it does, or no such delusion would likely have been created; however, I cannot imagine that there would not be signs to be seen hinting at the truth and at the delusional nature of the love, for a considerable period of time before the demise of the delusion. That is one of the many reasons why, even though lying to others may serve a useful and worthwhile purpose to either the liar or others, lying to oneself never pays in the long term, and although possibly harmless and certainly soothing at first, ultimately only makes things worse, not only because it wastes time, by delaying appropriate actions that ought to be taken based upon the truth one refuses to see, but also, because a variety of other decisions may have been made based upon the self-delusion by the time that the truth comes out, and generally, as long as one survives long enough to experience it, the truth does come out sooner or later in one way or the other, and in some shape or form - conversion disorders (hysteria?) or whatever. As a result, resources may have been invested, or even a whole life based upon, what was only ever a lie - nothing more, and nothing less. So, perhaps, the sooner the affair takes place, if it's going to happen, the better. I imagine, and I'm almost certain, that cheating in the game of monogamous love can also reflect a need for novelty on the part of the cheater. This is perfectly all right, but it is dishonest and bad taste at the very least, not to inform the romances involved - the first of them, as well as those following. In fact, I would go as far as to say that it is naive and wishful thinking to believe that any one person could fill all the needs of any other person - such ideal love is the kind of preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, wealth, power, or ideal and perfect love, that narcissists supposedly indulge in excessively, if the NPD diagnostic criteria are to be believed. I think it is not at all unusual in normals, although narcissists may lust for more, and are more difficult to satisfy, if they *can* be satisfied - the only time I ever felt satisfaction was a result of a codeine high; that's somewhat sad, isn't it? (Hmmm... I'm not sure I want you to cry for me, or us. One doesn't really miss it as long as one stays preoccupied and distracted from it - and indeed, it has the advantage that one experiences and learns more than if one had idly enjoyed the feelings of satisfaction one is missing. Maybe it is even preferable to only get it from a drug?) So, if getting all one's needs met by any other single individual is unrealistic wishful thinking, then cheating ought not be so almost universally condemned and looked down upon as it is in contemporary western society, and open relationships should be more common. Also, why is it such a commonly held delusion that somehow, love is a finite resource, and that loving one person perfectly and totally rules out the possibility of loving another? Obviously, few parents would argue that loving one of one's multiple children means that one doesn't love the others. Likewise, few believers in theistic religions or flavours of spirituality would say that loving god rules out loving others, even other gods, if the religion is polytheistic. So, why should romantic love somehow be singled out as unique in having the unlikely quality of only ever being sufficient to apply to a single object of affection? It is true that one cannot please more than a limited number of people, given the reality of human limitations, and sometimes, it is true that one can't please even a single person - if the latter is demanding, or one is quite incompetent - but that does in no way rule out the possibility of perfectly loving an arbitrary number of others (in addition to oneself, one's children, pets, gods, etc.), although, insomuch that love does tend to imply a desire to please to try and make the loved one happy, I imagine that loving too many would be accompanied with feelings of inadequacy.
On a slightly different note, why is it that pure sexual acts essentially amounting to little more than co-operative elicitation of mutual orgasm - basically, a technical excercise serving to effectively bring about the transient and purely animal sensation of sexual climax - more fleeting and evanescent than even a crack cocaine high. Why is it so significant to a seeming majority of people, that the cheating person has, however temporarily, chosen to chase this temporary little "hit" in co-operation with someone else than the victim? Clearly, it is not generally a case of justified concern about sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), but something much more mysterious and opaque to intellectual analysis and exploration. I think the phrase "make love" as a euphemism for sex, may offer a glimpse of possible understanding of the mystery. To an extent, it seems that many normals take sex as being somehow equivalent to love, or as the ultimate manifestation of the latter. Clearly, this conflicts with reality, although not necessarily with common sense, or rather, the relative lack of good sense that this phrase normally implies and which is so elegantly illustrated by the facts and mystery under discussion. Needless to say, copulatory acts can be satisfactorily performed in the complete absence of love. Moreover, sexual penetration does by no means necessarily elicit or encourage the development of love, where the latter does not already exist, as the phrase "make love" might tend to suggest, and indeed, sometimes, it tends to achieve the opposite result, namely to reducing love, and/or elicit aversion and/or hostility, such as when the sex is not desired by one of the participants - especially if it is performed particularly ruthlessly, coercively or violently as in rape; even more telling is the fact that rape is not always an act aiming primarily at selfish gratification by orgasm, but rather by sadistic pleasure derived from subjecting the victim to humiliation, shame, disgrace, dishonour, etc., although rarely with a focus on inflicting physical pain, or alternatively, by achieving some sense or experience of superiority or omnipotence from successfully defeating and subjugating the victim, in which case some measure of resistance would be desired by the instigator as it would tend to make the demonstration of omnipotence, however illusory and volatile, more convincing and thus more pleasing. Furthermore, many ordinary people - typically men according to the stereotype - seek sexual gratification through intentionally short-term relations, such as the archetypical one-night stand, where there is no chance for any emotional bonds or real love to develop, as proven by the willingness to abandon the sexual partner the very next day, without regret or sadness. Certainly, sex can be, and usually is, a rewarding element of relationships based on romantic love, but can true love really be sustained in the long run based purely upon sex? I suspect not. Clearly, then, even normals, if they cared to look, would see the folly in equating sex with love, so, I don't know why this euphemism for sex is so popular; maybe people just like the sound of it, or appreciate the fact that it emphases love and affection rather than the matter of reproduction so closely linked to the more technical term sex? Seen in that light, I might even begin to understand it myself, although it is still problematic, in that it exaggerates the importance of sex as an expression of love. I never had any lust for sexual intercourse, and it is, at best, a chore that I would engage in for the sake of contributing to the wellbeing of my lover - I may be able to enjoy it as a masochistic act of submission, and also, if it is satisfactory from the other person's point of view, that would be a reward in its own right; the orgasm itself, on the other hand, would clearly not be sufficient to make the rather tedious and repetitive exercise worth my while. Perhaps my disinterest in sex may be understood by my technically correct view of it as one of the basest and most primitive animal acts - even animals more primitive than mammals engage regularly in the practice. To be reduced to that level, is not narcissistically pleasing in any way, to say the least ;) Incidentally, here is a quote from the book (or e-book) "Narcissism Book of Quotes", by DR. Sam Vaknin: "I had referred to sex as making love. She [the NPD] looked at me very inquisitively and said: ’I noticed you say that a lot - why do you call it making love?’ So, I replied: ’Why, what would you call it?’ Her response was: ’I would just call it SEX. I’m not really sure what LOVE is!’". Even knowing what love is, I still have trouble with the phrase. So, what *is* it with normal people's confusion of sex and love? Why is the involvement of sex in extra-twosome affairs so particularly seriously offensive? Personally, I would be a lot more concerned, if I were to learn a) that she spends more time speaking or writing to others than to myself, b) that she finds someone else as interesting, or more interesting or intellectually stimulating than me, c) that she finds someone else more charming, loveable, adorable, admirable, or impressive, d) that she spends more time holding someone else (esp. if tight!), or cuddling with them, or just looking at them admiringly. Unless there is evidence to that effect, I would not be so much worried that she might fall out of love with me or abandon me in the short term, as I would worry about the stability of my position as her number one, in the short to medium term, and about the survival of our relationship in the long term. I would not particularly worry if she were to find someone else more visually pleasing, although it would bug me if it happened too often. In contrast, if she were to say she had sex with someone, I would say something like "Oh, well, suit yourself." although I might enquire as to whether she has deeper interest in the other person, and if reassured that she does not, if would be relieve and not worried or bothered in the least, and I might like that she has found something to enjoy, unless it turns into a predominant theme, and deprives me of her attention to a notable extent.
Now, let us return to the more general question of the great importance to normals of the exclusivity of love. To a great extent, I think that the delusion of the necessary singularity of romantic love reflects a narcissistic desire to be unique and perfect, if only in the eyes of the lover. To be unique to one's lover is by no means unreasonable to wish for or desire, nor is it even unrealistic to expect in practice. Indeed, I imagine that one is likely to be essentially unique to anyone one has more than the most distant and detached relationship with, such as friends and family. However, to also be perceived as perfect, including omnipotently capable of filling all needs and wants of a lover, is neither reasonable to expect nor desirable, unless one wants a highly delusional lover capable of deceiving herself or himself to the extreme extent implicated, or alternatively, a lover lacking in ambition, satisfied with exceedingly little - or not so little, depending on one's views about how ambitious a person ought to be. Personally, I prefer a great level of ambition, and even grandiose fantasies, as long as she is not delusional about the probability of realising such ambitions. Now, certainly I imagine it to be most enjoyable to be worshipped by one's lover, and that is by no means impossible within reason, but certainly to me, her needs and happiness are a lot more important than my desire to feel perfect and omnipotent - putting the needs of the lover ahead of one's own is one of the defining characteristics of true love, and amazingly, it is perfectly compatible with what one wants from a purely selfish point of view, as a direct effect of loving. To successfully please one's lover is selfishly rewarding in its own right; I'm not sure whether it is more selfish or more self-sacrificing - meseems this is a rather unique case where the two mean the same thing in practice. After losing the personality disorders, I also have no need for external confirmation of my self-esteem, although I do retain a problem with self-confidence; then again, I'm not sure I want it, if only a can get some control over my indecisiveness. In other words, I don't need constant admiration or even attention, and I could even do with days alone. So, maybe as a non-pathological narcissist, I'm better at loving than the average person? I don't know, as I haven't had a chance to really try it in practice.
Pathological narcissists definitely seem to have great trouble achieving anything close to true love, as a result of their preoccupation with themselves and unsympathetic neglect of others. I have tended to classify pathological narcissists and schizoids as incapable of any kind of real love, based upon my recognition of this as having been the case with myself before recovery. which is most of my life. Many people would tend to agree with such a one-sidedly negative view - including our old friend DR. Sam Vaknin - but this undoubtedly reflects their own experience, and I have seen no hard or convincing evidence for it. For example, the case of Kim and Steve Cooper would seem to contra-indicate uncritical acceptance of such a view, and Kane also begs to differ. It is at least not strictly part of the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), or for that matter, for Schizoid Personality Disorder (SPD), or any other condition that I know of, even psychopathy. Nevertheless, certainly it seems very prevalent in practice, but meseems it is unlikely to be universal. Hypothetically, if I was (and I was) a pathological narcissist and schizoid capable of sympathy but not true love, why should there not be others with these personality disorders instead incapable of sympathy but capable of some measure of real love - even though it would inevitably be very challenging to behave in a manner consistent with the latter, if one lacks sympathy; perhaps that's why so many people say NPDs are incapable of any form of real love - because they can't recognise any signs thereof, and thus can't feel it, as the NPD is inept at executing his love successfully, even if it's genuine, due to his/her lack of empathy and sympathy?
Empathy, for that matter - I still can't feel it, but do I still perceive it in some kind of emotionally detached and indirect manner? Or is my sympathy an intellectual and emotionally self-referential exercise, more reflective of my *own* emotions in response to my imagination of the situation of the person sympathised with, rather than anything reflective of the perceived emotional state of the other person (based on perception of facial expression, tone of voice, and other cues) and/or a genuine understanding of his or her situation, taking into account his or her perspective? I'm not sure, but I do know I have the neural infrastructure required for empathy, as I have felt it under the influence of drugs and while hypomanic. Well, enough on empathy and sympathy for now - not because I have a lack of interest in the topic, but rather the opposite, namely that it deserves to be addressed in greater depth than is within the scope of this side note.
One of the greatest rewards of recovering from the personality disorders, thus becoming a non-pathological narcissist and, to an extent, schizoid, was the realisation of being capable of true love, and for some reason, probably reflecting the destruction of schizoid delusions, an awakened and very strong desire to seek love, often actively, and certainly keeping that as a priority at all times, being only temporarily distracted from efforts to pursue it. It is a sad fact, that it has come to increasingly take on the characteristics of a burden or a plague rather than an asset, insofar as it has become a great source of frustration and agony. It is arguably preferable not to feel any need for love or even be capable of a desire for it, than to long for it and never know if one will ever find oneself blessed with it. I wouldn't want to lose it, or to go back to personality disorder permanently, but I would appreciate an option of switching my need for love off temporarily. If one can master multiple personalities, that may theoretically be possible, considering the versatility and power of dissociation, which is nothing short of amazing, but I shan't go into that here.
In saying that I remain, to an extent, schizoid, I refer to the fact that many of the characteristics of SPD still apply, including the hallmark feature of anhedonia, and to a lesser extent, apathy. However, I notable lack one of the most defining features of the schizoid syndrome, namely the lack of interest in relationships with other people. Although I do not really feel lonely, in that I have zero desire to go out and socialise, and from the point of view that my considerable interest in intellectually stimulating dialogue or interaction with others reflects novelty-seeking and a desire for entertainment as opposed to a need for human contact or bonding, I do feel lonely in the more limited sense that I am very much longing for love, and deeply missing it, sometimes to the point of crying.
No comments:
Post a Comment